Culture, Politics

SCOTUS: Bush not infallable.


Washington – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.
The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.

Tell it, Justice Breyer:

In his own separate opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said, “Congress has not issued the executive a ‘blank check.”‘
“Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary,” Breyer wrote.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t solve everything. This doesn’t address the utter human rights nightmare that Gitmo has become, and it doesn’t address what WILL happen to the 450 people rotting there now. But someone in this government actually said no to Dubya.

8 thoughts on “SCOTUS: Bush not infallable.

  1. The NYTimes article demonstrate again what a biased, bullshit paper the NYTimes has become: the decision was not a rebuke of the “aggressive ant-terror policies” of the Bush administration (and only a pro Talaban Bush hater would write the article that way), it was a specific decision ruling that a specific executive branch action was not authorized by the Constitution. And the issue was obviously not without doubt since the court ruling was 5 – 3. As to those captured Talaban terrorists, may they rot in that jail till they die.

  2. dirrigible,
    Just wondering, what’s the reason for the “pro-Taliban Bush-hater” construction? Before I voice any suspicions about deliberately smearing one’s opponnets, let me ask: do you actually believe that those of us who regard Bush as a simpering imbecile and a vicious, lying half-wit are in favor of the Taliban? Or does it simply not matter?

  3. David, I think it’s objective analysis that anyone who regards Bush as a “simpering imbecile, vicious, lying, haf w-t” falls into one of the following categories: a) engaging in a level of hyperbole that review of those remarks a few days later will cause them massive embarrassment; b) suffering from sbs (sudden bush syndrome), a condition based on extreme and irrational hatred of Bush that makes even otherwise rational people lose their ability to review the world clearly; c) haters of Western morality (as well as hatred of the U.S. and Jews; the NYTimes, Pacifica Radio, and much of the intellegencia fall within this group), so that anything Bush does is evil, despicable, and wrong; d) has so imbedded themselves with liberal think and liberal friends/colleages that they have never been presented with a conservative viewpoint and have the bigotted position that any conservative, including Bush, must be automatically stupid, wrong, and evil – a subscription to Commentary or the publications of the Hoover Institute can sometime effect a mind opening; e)is so jejune that the analytical portion of the brain has not developed .
    Since I don’t know you, I’m willing to assume in your case its either a) or b). Regards

  4. Ruby K,
    Props. Bush was out of line. He must follow the law.
    However, David Smith as well as yourself entirely miss the point. With the “sincere” guise of protecting our rights, folks like yourselves and the nyt would rather have us plagued by terrorism than civily address these legitimate issues.
    I think that fair thinking americans see the President, as he is, doing everything he possibly can to protect us, not as a power hungry dictator. So keep on ranting – and further contrast your misguided (in my view of course) and expose yourselves for what y’all are.
    As far as the “utter human rights nightmare that Gitmo has become” instead of throwing out accusations and hoping they might stick, why dont you specify some of these human rights atrocities.
    The informed are well aware of the three square meals, korans, privacy and so on that the detainees are provided. If you were further informed you may be aware of the fact, that the “privacy” the Red Cross insisted we provide these “alleged” mass murderers/walking ticking suicide bombs/72 virgins waiting list, has enabeled them to commit suicide, and prison riots. Mazel Tov!

  5. Dirrigible-
    for someone who puts a lot of faith in the Liar in Chief, you sure did pick an unfortunate screenname. So let me try again, even though you seem to be unable to respond in rational discourse instead of attacking:
    do you really think the torture of Gitmo is accomplishing anything, aside from being even more reason for others to do the same to American soldiers?
    how do you know that everyone in Gitmo is a “terrorist”? considering the numerous gargantuan mistakes this administration has made (no wmds, no ties to al qaeda, thousands of deaths when were promised small casualties, cost of war approaching a trillion dollars when we were told it would be minimal, not sending enough troops to actually get the guy who attacked who attacked this country) and the stories already circulating about people who’ve been extridited and rendered (or, easier language: disappeared and tortured) for no reason, I find it hard to accept that the torture tactics we’ve taken in dealing with these prisoners are looked upon as okay by this administration.
    And for the record, for someone who made this point:
    d) has so imbedded themselves with liberal think and liberal friends/colleages that they have never been presented with a conservative viewpoint and have the bigotted position that any conservative, including Bush, must be automatically stupid, wrong, and evil
    you seem so imbedded in conservativethink and conservative friends that you have an awfully bigoted position that any liberal or critic of Bush, including the author of these words, must be automatically stupid, wrong, evil, so jejune that the analytical portion of the brain has not developed, and most of all, a hater of western morality.
    If you want to have a discussion, great. Civilization won’t survive if we can’t get past the differences to common humanity. If you want to have flame war, start by switching that i to an e, and then go crash someplace else.

  6. K, it is difficult to have a civil consructive discussion when the starting out proposition is the Bush is the “Liar in Chief”. Once you say that you say it all – you have prejudged the issue and any argument you make is throught the prism of hatred of Bush. If you really want to make a rational argument, I suggest you point to specifics, and make your point. You ask whether torture works in Gitmo – what evidence do you have that torture is employed there as a matter of policy, and to the extent is exists, is anything but an aberation? And do I know that all the residents of Gitmo are terrorists? I don’t, but I’m willing to accept the the Federal government will rationally make that determination. After all, if I don’t believe that the Federal government is on the whole capable and efficient and correct, why am I (and why do you) entrust them with billions of dollars to run our school systems, our welfare system, our infrastructure, our health system, our regulatory sytems – or must I assume that you don’t think this government is capable of doing any of these things and threfor you take a libertarian position and are for the small government possible and object to all these program? And btw, if you reread my prior post, you will note that the groups listed were in the alternative, not cumulative – perhaps the government should get out of the schooling business and leave that to the private sector.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.